the only way i see spanier going down here is if the jury gets emotional. Spanier may have made mistakes and not been as vigilant as he should have been but man was he on the periphery here.
Official Graham Spanier trial thread.
- Thread starter BobPSU92
- Start date
I've seen almost no information regarding what was entered as evidence, so I'm not sure. I'm not sure why it would have been though, I'd think what McQueary told Curley and Schultz outweighs anything Paterno told them, or told the GJ. Keep in mind the information I have is strictly from reading a lot of news and social media sources today. I'm not there in person, and we don't have transcripts yet.
I fully believe this to be correct, but do you have any sort of link to confirm?
Again, I tip my hat to Graham Spanier: A real man who stood and fought, unlike the three cowards at his trial.
Ironically I think Spanier is quite a leader and likely would have been an asset to PSU in 2011 when the scandal broke. Since he was personally implicated I fully understand why that couldn't happen, but I think if he weren't personally involved in 2001 he would have done a great job in 2011. Instead we got Rodney and the BOT.
Please take this opportunity to use the Ignore feature.
Last edited:
He showed me everything I needed to know about him, when he did not take a plea deal, and had the courage to stand up and fight. I'm rooting for him.
You have no concrete evidence of that. Even if he did know something, exactly WHAT did he know??
You're more of a dolt than I thought.
You lost, now go away.
Yes, he put it all on the line. And the pathetic attempt by the prosecution to play on the emotions of the jury shows how weak their case is. And they knew it. That said, don't be surprised if the jury buys into this crap.
A guilty verdict would probably be overturned on appeal if the jury overreaches.
It also wouldn't have happened if the DA didn't drop the case in 1998.
The prosecution would have been better off going after all three with the emails and hoping one of them took the stand.
Unless Spanier is foolish enough to testify I don't see how he's found guilty? Even if he is it will be reversed on appeal.
This trial appears to be nothing more than a show. And the cheap shot at a dead man was pretty low IMO.
An idol of mine, NOT a sports star, but a musician, once said a famous line...
"I still believe, that people, are fundamentally decent, at the end of the day..."
I say he's right, and I say this jury doesn't buy in.
That musician was Geddy Lee, of Rush, and if anyone has a right to believe that people are NOT fundamentally decent, it's him: His parents were Holocaust Survivors.
Please take this moment, to read this post, regardless of what some crazy lunatic who played for five minutes on kickoff return, and thinks he's an important person, says. LMAO.
Incorrect. Curley testified that the 1998 emails where he referenced "Coach" when asking Schultz for updates - he was talking about Joe Paterno.
In 2001, when he said "after talking it over with Joe" he testified he was referring to Joe Paterno.
I don't have a link - but when the transcripts are released, you can find it there.
Don't get me started on that idiot. He's the main reason the media jumped all over JoePa.
No, Paterno's transcript was not entered into evidence on behalf of the Prosecution. Defense starts their case tomorrow and I don't know what they will enter.
You don't have to be a Ziegler follower to realize that victim 5 is full of crap. The Sandusky jury actually acquitted him of the sexual act with V5, only convicted of the "grooming" acts. V5 actually never claimed he was groomed. He claimed Sandusky became sexual the first time they worked out together and he rejected those advances. Yet did not tell anyone until after friends he knew came forward. Also, he told the GJ it happened in 1998, but changed his story to FOUR years later at trial.
That's fair enough, but consider that the testimony is piecemeal and attempts to describe conversations that were had ten years before. I keep going back to Joe's use of the term "fondling." Where does this come from? Was Joe simply rambling, looking for words?
You're right to focus on the flow of information to Spanier. So far, no one has testified to telling him that there was a sexual assault.
When do you head to East Lansing?
You mean the one that ended in "I don't know what you would call it?"
I say it's legit.
Agreed. The case against Curley and Schultz seems better than anything they have on Spanier. At least with C/S they have McQueary saying he made it clear it was sexual. C/S are saying they didn't tell Spanier it was sexual, and the defense has done a good job demonstrating that Spanier got his info primarily from C/S.
Get out of here with this misleading BS. While your statement is true, Curley said the decision to not report to DPW was Curley's. By leaving that out you're trying to implicate that Paterno was the influence for that decision, just like Freeh did. There's now sworn testimony saying that isn't true.
Yes. Completely plausible! Paterno was well known for the malicious yarns he liked to spin.
Nope, that's complete conjecture based on what we know right now. Paterno was never asked a direct question about the 1998 investigation.
No he didn't. He said he had heard rumors of an investigation but didn't know the details. Harmon's testimony about the 1998 e-mail "coach" was Sandusky. Today Curley confirms that the 2001 e-mail indicating he touched base with "coach" was Joe. Two different e-mails consistent with the fact pattern. Furthermore if Joe did indeed know that Jerry was investigated in 1998 that still doesn't confirm he knew the details or nature (which would have been confidential information) only that the outcome was no charges being filed.
Some new nuggets expanded upon, but nothing earth shattering. Nothing so far made Graham look like he was manipulating anyone or anything. Nothing gets settled, nobody won. Just another sh!t show that basically will cement a bad taste in people mouths outside of PSU. Oh well, stopped caring about that years back.
The transcripts will be up sooner or later and we can look at them then. I'm basing it on reports by reliable persons that were in the courtroom, which does not include any media.
I read your posts, 21. Although, I don't believe juries in general are particularly intelligent. That is intentional. Second, in this case the media and the public want blood; and the prosecution, knowing this, played the emotion card. Since nothing has gone right in 5+ years, I'm guessing that this jury does the wrong thing.
Ok we can stop pretending that is the case now. He knew and was less than honest about it. It sucks, but denying it after today is silly. if you want to hide behind a date or pretend Joe was an idiot, have at it.
O/T slightly - but I just want to comment how depressed & disgusted I am about my state office of attorney general.
It's embarrassing that they've put so much taxpayer money and manhours into a case built around "slapping sounds".
I hope it was all worth it for you Tom Corbett - you fat f*uck.
Carry on.
It's embarrassing that they've put so much taxpayer money and manhours into a case built around "slapping sounds".
I hope it was all worth it for you Tom Corbett - you fat f*uck.
Carry on.
Incorrect, Curley testified that the references to "Coach" in 1998 was Paterno. He said he kept Joe fully apprised of the 1998 investigation.
Matt Maisel's is not too bad. I only had a few observations and 1 correction on his.
http://fox43.com/2017/03/22/curley-schultz-testify-in-spanier-trial-as-prosecution-rests/
HARRISBURG, Pa. -- For the first time since the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal broke in 2011, former Penn State administrators Tim Curley and Gary Schultz testified under oath in open court.
Both were originally co-defendants with former university President Graham Spanier. On Wednesday, more than a week after they each pleaded guilty to misdemeanor counts of endangering the welfare of children, Curley and Schultz testified about the exchanges they had with their former boss about the 1998 and 2001 shower incidents involving longtime football assistant coach Jerry Sandusky.
At the heart of their testimony was an email from Febraury 27, 2001, in which the three discussed a "3-point plan" to alert Sandusky and the proper authorities that former graduate assistant Mike McQueary had spotted Sandusky in a shower with a young boy earlier that month.
Curley, Schultz, and Spanier agreed to a plan which involved them alerting Sandusky's Second Mile youth charity, telling the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, and also, Sandusky himself.
"This approach is acceptable," Spanier replied to one of the e-mails. "The only downside is if the message isn't acted upon and then we become vulnerable for it, but we can address that down the road."
Schultz testified Wednesday he thought "everything was handled" by Spanier at the time. "I honestly thought we followed the three-step plan," he testified.
"Who told you that?" quizzed Chief Deputy Attorney General Laura Ditka.
"I can't say for sure but I believe it was President Spanier," Schultz replied.
Prosecutors are trying to prove Spanier prevented or interfered with a report to authorities about Sandusky's 2001 shower incident, as alleged by McQueary, and also that he conspired with Curley and Schultz to prevent the report from being made.
Schultz and Curley both indicated Spanier was aware of Jerry Sandusky's possible transgressions as early as 1998. A report that Sandusky was naked in the shower with a boy and "bear-hugging" was investigated with no charges filed.
When Schultz and Curley met with Spanier on February 12, 2001, Schultz kept hand-written notes about the meeting. They indicate the 1998 report had been discussed.
"It involved Sandusky again," Schultz testified. "You thought he had learned his lesson? You see this (2001 report) and think, damn, he didn't."
The three decided then that Curley would approach Sandusky, and if he admitted to having a problem, DPW would be contacted.
However, Curley never spoke with Sandusky, according to Schultz.
In his testimony, Curley spoke of his meeting with Mike McQueary in the days after the February 2001 shower incident. Curley, who had trouble recalling numerous moments involving the 1998 and 2001 incidents, said McQueary did not use the word "sexual" to describe what he saw with Sandusky and the young boy in the Lasch Building shower on February 9.
However, McQueary testified on Tuesday that when he met with Curley and Schultz, he told the two he "saw Jerry molest a boy. It was sexual and over the line."
Curley indicated under cross-examination from Spanier's defense attorney Sam Silver that "We did what we thought was appropriate," based on the facts they had at the time.
Silver is claiming state attorneys are trying to criminalize a judgment call, made by the trio.
Schultz was the prosecution's final of 15 witnesses. He testified after a five-minute, emotional testimony from a "John Doe," who identified himself as a sexual abuse victim of Sandusky in the summer of 2002.
The victim, now 28, claims Sandusky molested him in a Penn State locker room shower.
Both Schultz and Curley admitted it was a mistake to not inform DPW at the time, adding however, they did not believe Sandusky's acts were sexual in nature until the grand jury presentment was released in 2011.
Spanier's defense team opens court Thursday at 8:30 a.m.
The correction:
The plan was only to include DPW if Sandusky did NOT admit showering with youth was inappropriate behavior.
The observations:
Plan to contact Sandusky is incorrect per Federally recommended protocols, and the prosecution querying as if this was appropriate to do is laughable. You never tip someone off, or they can zero in on the potential victim and coerce them to defend them.
Plan to go to TSM is consistent with 2001 CPSL . People seem to forget they had no idea who the youth was.
Even tho Curley and Schultz wish in hindsight they had done better, they actually did the right things with the info they had.
Last edited:
Nobody won?? I think C/S won and soon Spanier will win. The state lost badly.
For a guy that stopped caring years back, please explain your hundreds of posts about it.
No sorry man not going to bite on that. The GJ transcript is clear. Paterno was never asked about 1998 directly.
Similar threads
